Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972-09-219-21-72 26o A regular meeting of the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, VirgiNs, was held at the County Office Building of said County on the 21st day of September 21, 1972, at 9:00 A.M. Present: Messrs. Stuart F. Carwile, Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley~ Jr., William C. Thacker, Jr., Gordon L. Wheeler and.Lloyd F. Wood~ Jr. (Note: Mr. Carwi!e arrived at 9:1~ A.M., left at 9:~ A.M. and returned at 1:30 P.M.) Absent: None Officers present: County Executive and County Attorney. The meeting opened with The Lord's Prayer led by.Mr. Wheeler. Upon motion by Mr. Fisher~ seconded by Mr. Wood, minutes of the meetings of July 26, August 9, August 17~ August 29 and September ~ were approved as read. Motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. AB'SENT: Mr~...:C~rwile.. Mr. Batchelor presented a communication from Dulaney, Salley and Company, requesting that the Board amend the minutes of June 2~, 1972, in order to more fully incorporate their intent in establishing t~e tax rate for the year 1972. Mr;-FiSher offered motion to amend the minutes of June 28, t972, as follows: BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia does hereby lay the County levy for the year 1972 for General County ~arposes of Five Dollars and Ninety Cents ($~.90) on eve~ry One Hundred Dollars worth of assessed value of real estate and personal property, and ordered that the Director of Finance of the County of Albemarle assess and collect on all taxable real estate and all taxable personal property, including machinery and tools not assessed as real estate, used or employed in a manufacturing~ business, not taxable by the State on Capital; including ~blic Service Corporation property (except the '~or011ing stock of railroads) based upon the assessment fixed by the State Corporation Commission and certified by it to the Board of Supervisors both as to location and valuation; and including all boats and watercraft under five tons as set forth in the Code of Virginia; and all vehicles used as mobile homes or offices as set forth in the Virginia Code; excluding merchant's capital, farm machinery, farm tools, farm livestock, and household goods as set forth in the'Code of Virginia, SectiOns ~8-829 and ~8-829.1. FURTHER, the Director of Finance shall make separate classi$i- cations~ of farm machinery, farm tools and farm livestock. Mr. Fisher's motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. None. Mr. Carwile. 9-21-72 267 Mr. W. A. ?acer Chairman of the Flood Committee was present to give a report. He Sta~ed'that the committee had met and they felt that the majority of people affected by the flood had applied for assistance. They recommended that several ads be run in the local newspaper advising'people of the deadline for filing for assistance. Motion was Offered by 'Mr. Thacker~ seconded by Mr. Fisher to authorize the County Executive to work out the details, one, this· with Mr. ?ace. Motion carried by the following recorded vote: ~ES: Messrs. Carwile, Fishery Henley, Thacker~ Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. Mr. Wheeler expressed the Board's appreciation for the work that the committee had performed on the behalf of the County and asked Mr. Pace to convey this to the members. Mr. Richard Coates~ Assistant Resident Engineer was present to present highway matters in the abse~e of Mr.R.~G. Warner. The proposed budget for the Secondary System for the fiscal year ending June 30, 197~ was submitted by the County Executive. On motion by Mr. Wood, seconded by Mr. Fisher, the following resolution was adopted by the following re~orded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile~ Fisher, Henley, Thacker~ Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the SeCondary System Budget for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, as submitted by Mr. R~ G. Warner~ Resident Engineer, bE and the same is hereby approved as follows: Ordinary Maintenance Maintenance Replacements Incidental Construction State Funds Project Construction Total $ ~17,129.00 163, ~8 ~. O0 oo,.oo ..8~+ 5'., 886. O0 $1 , 712,000. O0 Mr. Wood stated that he had received several calls ~out Greenbrier Driv~ .... Erom its intersection at Rt. 29 North. He stated that there are "no parking" signs to the end of state maintenance~ however~ past this point, there is a problem with congestion caused by the number of workmen who park on either side of the road. He asked Dr. Charles Hurt~ who was present, if it would be possible to continue "no parking" signs along this section until th~sm road~a~d interconnecting roads are accepted ~nto the State secondary system. Dr. Hurt stated that he would do whatever was $osSible .to help alleviate the situation. Mr. Carwi~e said that he has received calls concerning the intersection of Georgetown and Barracks Roads stating that the stop sign was not clearly visible and he asked Mr. Coates to have this cleared. He also suggested that a "prepare to stop" sign might be placed on ~eorgetown Road. 9-2i -?2 Mr. Thacker asked if the Highway Department would study the possibility of relocating asign on Route 6 which is directly in front of the Scottsville Museum. ' The Board was reminded that a public hearing on the closing of the Warren and Hatton Ferries is to be held on October $, 1972, at 7:30 P.M. at the Scottsvitle School. Upon motion by Mr. Thacker, seconded by Mr. Fisher, the following resolution was offered: WHEREAS, a public hearing will he held by a representative of the State Highway Commission in the Scottsvit!e Junior High School at 7:30 P.M. on October ~, 1972, for the purpose of ob- taining citizens' comments on the Commission's intentibn-~ to - discontinue portions of Route 627, including the Warren Ferry in Albemarle and Buckingham Counties, and to discontinue portions of Route 62~, including the Hatton Ferry in Albemarle and Bucking- ham Colmties$ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Super- visors of Al'bemarle County, Virginia, that the following individuals be and they are hereby respectfully invited and urged to attend said public hearing: The Honorable J. Harry Michael,'Jr.; The HonOrable Daniel G. VanClief; The HonorRble Thomas J. Michie, Jr.; Mr. LeRoy Eakin, Highway Commission representative for Culpeper District; and Mr. D. B. Hope, Culpeper District Engineer. The above motion carried by. the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs'~Cgrwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.- NAYS: None. The following communication was receiv~d~from the Department of HighWays: September 15, 1972 Miss Lettie E. Naher, Clerk Board of Supervisors County Office Building Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Dear Miss Neher: "'~ Reference is made to your letter of September 11, 1972, with regard to the maintenance of Route 777 in Albemarle County. This is to advise that I have made a working'agreement with the-Culpeper Residency, which'handles work in Orange County, whereby they will maintain that portion of Route 777 in Albemarle County which is accessible only through Orange County. Any maintenance work done will be charged against Albemarle Secondary Maintenance Funds; however, Orange County will do the actual work. Very truly yours, (Signed) R. G. Warner Resident Engineer" Mr. Carwile offered motion to authorize the Chairman to execute the following agreemeht: THIS AGREEMENT~ made this 21st day of September~ 1972~ by and between the City of Charlottesville~ Virginia (the City), Albemarle County~Virginia~(the County)~ and Rivanna Water and Sewer A~thority (the A~tho~ity), provides that WHEREAS, the City and the County have taken the nedessary steps to create the Authority pursuant to the Virginia Water and Sewer Authorities Act (the Act) for the ~urpose of acquiring, financing~ constructing~ operating and maintaining facilities for developing a supply of potable water for the City and the County and for the abatement of poI~ution resulting from sewage in the Rivanna River Basi~; and WHEREAS~ the Authority proposes to issue its revenue bonds to finance its share of the cost of undertaking water and sewer projects but is now in the need of funds to go forward with planning for such projects pending the sale of its bonds; and WHEREAS~ the City and the County as members of the Authority are empowered by. Section 1~.1-t2~0 (hi) of the Act to advance or lend money to the Authority; NOWTHEREFORE~ the pa~ties hereto agree as follows: (1) The City and the County each agree to lend to the Authority up to $'~O,O00 to be used for engineering and other preliminary expenses incident to the Authority's purpose. (2) Such leans shall be made equally by the City and the County from time to time upon the written request of the Chairman ef the ~thority to both the City a~d the County. (~) Such loans shall be repaid by the Authority to the City and the County not later than June ~0~ 197~, with interest at the rate of ~% per year. IN WI~TNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this agreement to be executed by their duly authorized officers. Motien was seconded by Mr. Wood and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs'~-Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. Mr. Batchelor presented the following communication from Ray B. Jones in reference to the engineering fee on Powel~l's Creek: "Attached i~ the invoice from John McNair and Associates for the unpaid balance on the ?owell's CreeE sewer plant and the appurtenances thereto. Since this plant will not be built and the Service Authority does not have the funds to pay the Bill, it is requested that the Board of Supervisors assume this obligation. I am sure that you and the Governing Body realize that the development of these plans made it possible for Albemarle County to be allocated ce~tain~Era~nt funds. The allocation of these grant funds was significant in the formation of the Rivanna Regional ~athority. Evenlual!y approximately one-half of the design wilt be used as shown in the letter from John McNair dated August 22M Mr. Batchelor stated that funds wereavailable under the Watershed Project in the current budget and Mr. Wheeler stated that he supported payment of this bill by the County. Mr. Wood offered motion to approve and pay bill from John McNair and Associates in the amount of $20,636.97 and termeddas "South Rivanna Sewage Treatment Plant Design under terms of Contract signed June 2, 1970". Motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. Mr. John Humphrey, County Planner, was present to give a report on Hollymead. He stated that the Planning Department has received a preliminary subdivision plat that shows possible non-compliance with minimum lot size as based on conditio~s~set forth by the Board in its approval of Hollymead. That condition requires 20,000 sq. ft. for houses on a septic system. He stated that in consultation with representatives of the developer, several approaches on how to meet the intent and not disrupt the overall plan had been presented. He then read the following letter from Dr. Charles W. Hurt: "September 20, 1972 Board of Supervisors County of Albemarle County Office Building Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Re: 20,000 Sq. Ft. lots, Hollymead Dear Members of the Board: On suggestion of the County Planner, we would like a clarification of intent from the Board of Supervisors in connection with the condition recommending that the use of septic tanks be limited on a minimum size lot of 20,000 square feet per lot for septic systems. The limit of 20,000 square feet could be met in one of the following ways, with your approval: That the sewer collector lines be installed and with approval from the Health Department a temporary large ~entral septic system be installed to take care of a minimum number of houses at Hollymead. 2. That a deed of restriction be placed on every other lot stating that no building can take place until such time as there is a working central sewer system and adjoining properties are connected. There are representatives from my firm present today at this meeting to give full'exploration to the above mentioned method of septic installation, It is hoped that a workable situation can be achieved with the unexpected problem. It is our intent to work with the Board of Supervisors more closely and to keep county staff members informed on the development as they take place at Hollymead. I believe that with this joint co-operation, Hollymead will develop into a model PUD for Alben~le County. Yours truly, (Signed) Charles W. Hurt" Mr. Humphrey then read the following memorandum from J. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer: 9-21-72 271 "Memo To: Mr. John Humphrey FrOm: Mr. Jo Harvey Bailey Subject: Hollymead Sewerage 'As an alternative to individual septic tanks for the 8~ lots in Hollymead allow such service and as a solution to the use of lots of Less ~than 20,000 sq. ft. in area, as specified in the conditions ~for a~proval, it was suggested that a multiple house service system be employed. This system would make immediate use of the collector services to be installed by the developer. Further investigation into the consolidated septic system would i=dicate that it poses grave drawbacks. If the area were divided into two fields to accommodate 8~ lots, the lot plan suggests 34 dwellings would be served by one field and ~1 by the other. It is assumed the same number of lineal feet of tile will be required for a dwelling regardless of whether it is served by itself or grouped with others~ and that 300 ft. per house will be required. Instead of rDre-cast ~&Ptic tanks, two large tanks (6'x13'x~9') for the smaller field and (6'x16'x48') for the larger, would be built in place. Each of these septic tanks would require a pump and force main to convey the effluent to a dis- tribution box. From thence, multiple pumps and distribution boxes would be required to serve the extensive fieldS. Hollymead School has Just constructed such a system at the cost of approximately $13,000 for a 4~000 foot total drain field. If we assume the unit cost for the proposed Hollymead system would closely approximate the schools'~cost experiences, then the estimated cost of the system is 0 ~ $~'~. 00.; The average cost per dwelling ~s beenestimated by the owner as $800. This means the individual septic system plan would cost $68,000 a savings of $1~,000 for 8~ lots." · After considerable discussion about the above, it was the concensus of the Board that a resolution setting forth the method for putting the above cOnditions, as into effect, ~scussed,/should be prepared by the County Attorney and the County Planner, same to be submitted for adoption at the meeting of September 27. Mr. Humphrey then presented a status report s~A[ing that since this is' the first planned community in Albemarle, the Supervisors should be informed of progress. He stated that on April 10, 1972~ 8~ permits were issued for single family rental units on 200 plus acres in the area known as Hollymead. On May'8, 1972 the Board approved a special permit for 750 units in Phase I, ultimately to be served by public water and sewer with interim development without public sewer and without upgrading existing roads. The Planning Commission has approved landscaping plan, utilities plan, general site plan and E~ading plan for area one of Phase I. On September 12, 1972, the site review committee received and reviewed site and grading plan for area 2. All road plans and profiles for Phase I were submitted to the Highway Department. They~ in turn recommended changes and returned these to the County Engineer and on Seotember 20 he did refer these back to the Highway Department for formal approval. Grading ola~have been approved and permits issued for grading done at the two entrances on 29 South. A review of land north of Hollymead Drive, parallel to Route 29, was inspected in compliance with soil and sedimentation ordinance earlier this year and it was ascertained that no grading was necessary, only clearing and grubbing to clear out theUnderbrush. A review of the McCauley-Taylor tract was accomplished ~d grading permit issued on April 6, 1972. A subsequent plan was submitted and approved for the area of Rt. 649 immediately east of the furniture store. 272 kt present~ sewer and water in Phase I are being installed based on utilities plan. On August 1~, four permits for single family houses were issued to CFM Corporation in violation of conditions of approval based on incorrect information stating that public water and sewer were avai!Dble. The foundation of one house" was started and this week has been stopped and these permits voided. The 8~ permits issued were r~voked because of change in plans from rental to ownership. CFM contracted for a block of lots on the 27th and at that time~the variance from the 20,000 sq. ft. condition was noted onthe preliminary site plan. Items to be completed before teta! compliance are: (1) Agreement consummated between the Albemarle County Service Authority and developer(s)~to insure construction and/or financing relative to construction of Phase I, Hollymead. (See Dr. Hurt's letter to Ray Jones under date of September 21, 1972.) (2) Escrow fund to be held by the County to insure individual hook-up to a public sewer system. (3) Escrow and bonds to insure construction of streets to State standards. The Planning Department has received an estimate of some $72,000 from Dr. Hurt's engineer. This is to be reviewed by the County Engineer and approved. On the basis of this approval the Planning Department will request negotiable instrument' to be filed and held until roads, or J~S~gments thereof, are completed. (4) Citizens Association Charter has been filed and reviewed and will be processed in'~a week. (~) Approval of the subdivision under the Subdivision Ordinance by the County. The Planning~COmmission needs andoriginal with all pertinent information and eight copies~-~Subdivision olat, citizens charter and other pertinent data-to be filed and recorded. Mr. Wheeler then asked Mr. Humphrey to give another progress report on HollYm~ad after the first of the year. An ~reement between the City of Charlottesville, the County of Albemarle and Horizon Aviation, Inc. was presented. This agreement coverE operations of at the Charlottesvillz-Albemarle A~rpo~t, the Lessee/and is effective for ~ years from oc~ooer 1, 1972. Motion was offered by Henley,._seconded by Mr. Thacker to authorize the Chairman to execute the agreement. Motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: ~Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Carwile. (Note: Said lease is in permanent records of the Board of Supervisors) RESOLVED Motion was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Thacker/to authorize the Chairman to execute the following agreement between the County of Alhemarle and the City of Charlottesville. This agreement also pertains to the Charlottesville- Albemarle Airoort: 273 This Agreement made and entered into this 21st day.of September, ~9~2~ by and between the CeUNTY OF ALBEMARLE and the CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE~ ~ursuant to the authority contained in Section 5.1-35 and 5.1.36, Code of Virginia (1950),as amended. WITNESSETH: The parties hereto agree that the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport, now jointly owned by them shall~ hereafter be owned and operated by a governing board which shall consist of the County Executive of the County of Albemarle, the City Manager of the City of Charlottesville, and the Chairman of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Joint Airport Commission~ all of whom shall serve without compensation but shall be reimbursed for reasonable and necessary expenses. The three members hereby designated shall serve on the-board hereby established while serving as County Executive, City Manager and Chairman respectively. The Board hereby established shall be known as ?The Charlottes- ville-Albemarle Airport Board"~ and shall have all the powers conferred on such boards by Section 5. I'.35 and ~.t.36, Code of Virginia (1950) as amended. The parties further agree that they will convey all right, title and interests, now vested in them with respect to the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport to the Board hereby established. Such conveyances shall be at no cost to the Board. The parties agree to share equally in all operational costs of the Airport to the extent that they exceed net revenues~ and in the costs of any improve- ments thereto; provided, however, that no improvement, the cost of which will require funds from the County and City shall be undertaken by the Board without the prior approval of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County and the City Council of Charlottesville. The Governing Board shall exercise complete management control of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport, and, in addition, it shall accomplish the following: (1) The Board will take action to ensure compliance with such regula- tions of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the United States as may be applicable; (2) The Board will, not less frequently than annually cause an audit of its financial affairs to be conducted by an independent auditor, and a report there of submitted to the parties hereto; (3) The Board shall maintain insurance satisfactory to the parties hereto to protect the property conveyed to them or hereafter acquired, and to save the parties harmSess from claims arising out of the operation of the airport. To the extent that i~ has the power to do soy the County of Albemarle agrees to enact such ordinances as may be necessary to regulate vehicular parking and traffic, and to regulate the orderly conduct of business at the airport. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the County of Albemarle~ pursuant to a resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors on September 21, 1972, has caused this agreement to be executed in its behalf bY Gordon L. Wheeler, Chairman, and attested by Lettie E. Neher, Clerk of the Board, and the City of Charlottesville, pursuant to resolution duly adopted by its City Council on 1972, has caused this agreement to be executed on its behalf by Francis H. Fife~ Mayor~ and attested by J. Sidney Rush~ Jr., Clerk of the Council. The above motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. ,ABSENT: Mr. Carwile. Mr. Batchelor p~sented a request for extension of the ILS project at the Airport stating that the Airport Commission recommended that a turn-around be added at the south end of Runway NO. 3 While the ILS project is under constr- uction. This will increase the safety at the airport and wOUld be in order at this time during earth moving operation for the ILS project. He stated that FAA has been contacted and they will participate in the cost. The contract for this can be accomplished by maing funds that were not needed for the ILS project. The ~ounty's cost would be one-fourth of an e~timated $$~,~00oO0 or $11,~2~.00. The County's share of the total project would then be estimated at $~7,570.66. Motion was offered by Mr. Henley to authorize the County Engineer be to proceed with this project, same to/let as a separate contract or as a change order to the present contract. Motion was seconded by Mr. Wood and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Carwile. Statements of expenses of the Department of Finance, the Sheriff's Office and · he Office of the Commonwealth's Attorney were submitted for the month of August, 1972. On motion by Mr. Thacker, seconded by Mr. Wood, these statements were approved by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Carwile. Reports of the Department of Public Welfare were submitted for the month of July, 1972, in accordance with Sections 63-67.1 and 63-67.2 of the Code of Virg~iR. Statement of expenses incurred in the maintenance of the County Jail was submitted along with summary statement of prisoner days for the month of August~ 1972. Claim of the Jail Physician was submitted for the month of August, 1972~ in the amount of $~g. O0, of which two-thirds is reimbursable by the State. On 275 motion by Mr. Fisher, seconded by Mr. Thacker, these statements were approved for payment by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thakker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Carwile. Report of the County Executive was submitted for the month of ~ugust, 1972, as information. Uoon motion by Mr. Thacker, seconded by Mr. Wood, the following resolution was adopted by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. .ABSENT: Mr. Carwile. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $890,51+8.38 be and~her~by~is~appropriated to be used as folk~s: Joint Security Complex -'~.V6ca~ional Technical Center $ ~31,735.75 $ 4~8,812.63 The following communication was received: "Seotember 12, 1972 To: T. M. Batchelor, Jr. From: Ray B. Jones Subject: Special Appropriation The School Board, in a lease dated July 20, 1972, agreed to lease, a portion of Albemarle High School to the Piedmont Community College for $2~,000. A check dated August 31, 1972, has been received in the amount of $8,333.33 for 1/3 of the total amount. Two more checks are forthcoming in December and March. The Superintendent has requested the following codes be increased by the following amounts: 17.6-119 Compensation of Janitors $10,000 17.61-21~ Repairs-~ildings & Grounds ~,000 17..6-207 Lights and Power ~,000 17.6-311 Fuel 2,000 17.8-600.6 Buildings and Grounds 3,000 $2~,0oo The $3,000 allocated under 17.8-600.6 is necessary to provide some partitimning required by the operation of the Community'College. The other allocations are estimated increases in utilities and maintenance costs. A copy of the lease is attached." Upon motion by Mr. Wood, seconded by Mr. Thacker, the following resolution was adopted by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs~ Fisher, Hen!ey~ Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Carwile. BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $2~,0OO be and is hereby appropriated for school purposes as ~utlined above. 2 Mr. Batchelor stated that he had received a request from the Electoral Board for the purchase of additional voting machines, these to be used for emergenc~ purposes. Motion was offered by Mr. Fisher, seconded by Mr. Wood to adopt the following resolution. Motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. None. ABSENT: Mr. Carwile. BE IT RESOLVED By the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $3,750.00 be and is hereby appropriated for the purchase of two voting machines. Mr. Ray B. Jones was present to give a report on certain well lots owned by the County. After a lengthy presentation, he stated that the Board should reserve the right to take any mechanical equipment that might still-.be on these lots if same are sold. Motion was offered by Mr. Thacker, seconded by Mr. Henley to dispose of all building size lots at public auction andto negotiate for the sale of other lots. Motion ~carriedab¥}the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Tha2ker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Carwile. During Mr. Jones' presentation he stated that it had recently come to his attention that two abandoned well lots in Laurel Hills Subdivision and the Property on which the CroZet Filter Plant is built are recorded in the name of the County of Albemarle. Mr. Jones stated that these items were bought with money advanced by the County before the Service Authority was finalized, however, this money was repaid by the Service Authority on October 12, 196~ He, therefore, asked that this land be transferred to the name of the Service Authority. Motion was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Thacker, to have the County Attorney proceed with this transfer. Motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. ~ NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Carwile. Upon motion by Mr. Carwile, seconded by Mr. Thacker, the Clerk was ordered to advertise, once a week for two successive weeks, for a public hearing on OCtober 19, 1972, at 10:00 A.M. an amendment to the County Code under title of "An Ordinance to adopt by reference the provisions of Titls $6. I and Article 6 of Chaoter 2 of Title 18.1 of the Code of Virginia, as amended, relating to while motor vehicles and traffic generally and to driving/under the influence of alcohol, drugs or intoxicants, and to repeal and renumber certain sections of the Albemarle 277 County Code." Motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrso Carwile~ Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wheeler. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Wood. Upon motion by Mr. Thacker, seconded by Mr. Carwile, the Clerk was ordered t~'~advertise, once a week for two successive weeks, for a public hearing on October 19~ 1972 at 10:10 A.M. an amendment to the County Code under title "An Ordinance to designate agencies whose membership shall be entitledto benefits under the pr~isions of the Virginia Line of Duty Act (Virginia Code Section 15o1-156.1 et seq) as being integral parts of the Official Safety Program of Albemarle County by the addition of Article VIII~ Section 2-~ to the County Code." Motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, ~entey, Thacker and Wheeler. NAYS: Nor~ ABSENT:' Mr. Wood. Motion to adopt the following resolution was offered by Mr'. Carwile: RESOLVED: PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 716, ACTS OF ASSEMBLY OF 1972, the - following deputy Sheriffs employed by the County of Albemarle are hereby certified as full time law enforcement deputies who have met the qualifications of the Law Enforcement Officers Training Standards Commission and are eligible to receive the minimum salary at $7,200 per annum. L. Kent~ Carter, Thomas A. Lewis, C. Purcell McCue, J. Steve Huffman, J. Howard Morris, Walter E. Morrison, . ~-~.Wa~ne Davis, Thomas A. Anderson, Thomas H. Maxwell, Harry H. Young, Jr. The above motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES:~ Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. The following contractual agreement among the sponsoring local governments of the Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Detention Commission and ~pplicant local governments ~esiring to become sponsoring members of~h commission was presented: PREAMBLE WHEREAS~ at the present time the cities of Harrisonburg, Lexington, Staunton, and Waynesboro are sponsoring local governments of the Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Detention Commission, being hereinafter sometimes referred to as "s~onsoring local government" or ~sponsors"~ and WHEREAS, under the supervision of the Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Detention Commission a Juvenile Detention Home has been constructed and is in operation, and WHEREAS, th~ bids for the construction of such Juvenile Detention Home were received from contractors in December 1966 Eor the construction of this facility, and WHEREAS, each of the sponsoring local governments de,posited $37,500 as its share of the cost of construction of the Juvenile Detention Home, and WHEREAS, th? City of Staunton contributed an additional five and sixty.seven hundredths ~o67) acres of land as the sit~Tor such facility, and WHEREAS, other local governments in the area which were initially expected to be served by the Shenandoah Velley Detention Home elected not to become sponsors of this facility at the time the construction was planned and commenced, and WHEREAS, it now apoears to the governing bodies of several local governments located in and near the Shenandoah Valtv that it is desirable for such local governments to become sponsors of the Shenandoah Valley DetentiOn Home, and ~4EREAS, the City of Charlottesville, Virginia; the County of Albemarle, Vir$inia; the County of Augusta, Virginia; and the County of Rockingham, Virginia are applicants to become sponsoring local governments of the Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Detention Home and being hereinafter sometimes referred to as "applicant local government" or "applicant", and WHEREAS, the State Legislation relating to joint sponsorship of Juvenile detention homes and commissions by local governments was amended in t972 to permit enlargement of the number of sponsoring local governments of subh Juvenile Detention Homes and Commissions according to the terms of agreement among the local sponsoring governments and applicant local governments, and WHEREAS~ the local gover~ng bodies sponsoring the Shenandoah Juvenile Detention Home facility agree to accept such applicant local governments as additional sponsors of the facility under the terms and conditions stated below, and WHEREAS, the applicant lo,at governments agree to these terms and conditions as the considerations under which they as individual applicants are to receive sponsoring membership in the Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Detention Commission and to obtain privileges for the use of the Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Detention Home as provided to other sponsoring members, and WHEREAS, it is agreed by the applicant local governments and the initial Sponsoring local governments that the construction costs have risen in the 'Shenandoah Valley area by 40% since December 1966, and WHEREAS, the cities of Harrisonburg, Lexington, Staunton, and Waynesboro shall be known as the sponsors and as the party of the first part and that the City of Charlottesville and the counties of Albemarle, Augusta, and Rockingham shall be known as applicants and that each of the applicants shall be known as parties of the second part. TERMS 0F AGREEMENT The following provisions are the'-~terms of agreement between the sponsors and the applicants for membership for sponsorship of .the Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Detention Commission and the use of the Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Detention Home: 1) That each applicant local government shall prior to September 1~, 1972 pay into the capital improvement reserve fund of the Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Detention Home the sum of $37,~00 plus the sum of $1g,000 representing the increase in construction costs amounting to 40% ~or a total of $~2,~00. 2) That such funds paid by each such applicant local government shall be held in reserve and invested in appropriate government securities until needed for capital improvements to the Shenandoah Vall. ey Juvenile Detention Home. Such investments shal'l be made in a manner to obtain a maximum amount of interest consistent with secure investment as can be reasonably expected. 3) That while such funds are held in reserve all interest collected from such investments shall accrue to the benefit of the Juvenile Detention Commission for the purpose of financing the operation of the facilities of the Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Detention Home or for caoital improvement purposes for such facilities, whichever the commission may determine to be appropriate. 4) That this contractual agreement is cont~gent upon receipt of a finm cial grant from either the U. S. Government of the State of Virginia or from both the previously mentioned sources of not less than ~0% of the cost involved in the construction of dormitory facilities of six (6) rooms for boys and four (4) rooms for girls comparable to that which presently exists at the facility, as well as the additional auxiliary space required to accommodate juveniles committed from the applicants. Such new facilities are to be comparable in size and type of construction to that which currently exists at the Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Detention Home. ~) That if it is impossible to obtain a grant a~ defined in paragraph 4~r such construction purposes within twenty~Four months from September 1, 1972, this 279 agreement will be terminated and the amount of payment made by such applicant local governments will be refunded to the applicant local government. Provided~ however~ if said grant is not obtained and the applicants elect to pay the entire cost of construction of the additional facilities over the balance remaining in the Shenandoah Valley $~venile Detention Home capital improvement reserve fund~ without cost or obligation to the present sponsors, then this agreement shall not terminate but shall remain i~'~full force and effect as if such grant had been obtained. Upon the termination of this agreement each applicant local government shall cease to be a sponsoring member and all rights and privileges which such applicant local govermment may have enjoyed as a sponsoring local government shall cease. 6) That each applicant local government shall pay into the operating fund of the Shenandoah Val]~.ey Juvenile Detention Home by September 1~, 1972 an additional amount equal to one-fourth (I/~) of the operating balance on h~nd at the Detention Home on September 1, 1972. Such payment shall be added to and become a Part of the operating balance for such facility. 7) That during the time between the date of execution of this agreement and completion of construction of the expanded facility, detention of Juveniles in the Juvenile Detention Home from such new sponsoring local government jurisdictions shall be given ~riority consideration over detention of juveniles from non-sponsoring local government areas~ however~ it is understood and agreed that the inital~local government sponsoring members will continue to receive priority consideration when the ~uvenile Detention Home facility is filled to or near capacity until the time the construction herein mentioned has been completed. After completion of the expanded facility ~ll sponsors shall receive equal consideration. 8) That the payment for operational costs by such new local government sponsors for the remainder of the first fiscal year shall be determined by using the average per diem cost for the prior fiscal year and multiplying this amount by the number of detention-days of utilization of the facility for confinement of juveniles from the respective new sponsoring member jurisdictions. Such payments shall be made tri-monthly. After completion of the fiscal year in which the new sponsoring local governments become members~ the local shmre of cost of operation of the Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Detention Home shall be prorated among all the then sponsoring local governments according to the number of ~detention days of utilization of the facility by each of the sponsoring jurisdictions. 9) That it is understood and agreed that the Juvenile Judge from each local governmental jurisdiction shall serve as a member ex-officio of the 'Juvenile Detention Commission as provided by law and that each~ person serving on the Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Detention Home Commission shall have one vote on all matters coming before such commission. 10) That in addition to the Juvenile Judges~ membership on the Juvenile Detention Commission shall consist of only one (1) member from each of the then sponsoring local governments~ and that such member shall have qualifications and be elected in a manne~ provided by State law, but with the understanding that insofar as it is possible to do so within the framework of state law, the governing bo~es will $ive due consideration to the election as a~representative ~ the commission of the chief administrative officer of the unit of local government or some other person vitally interested in the Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Detention Home and having direct liason with the ~overning body of the unit of local government. 11) That in addition to the regular mem~ers~ each then sponsoring unitoSf local government shall designate in the same manner as required for the regular one or more alternate representative members to serve upon request of the regular member as the member of the unit of local government to the Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Detention Eome Commission during the absence of the regular member. Such alternate representative when serving as the regular member shall be entitled to vote and participate in all commission action and deliberation as if th'e alternate representative was the regular member. 12) That this agreement shall become effective on September 1, 1.972 provided it has been approved by all present sponsors and the~applicant local government. Motion was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Thacker to approve the above agreement to authorize the Chairman to execute same of behalf of the County. Motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile~ Fisher, Henley, Thacker~ Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. The following communication was received from the Tax Relief Committee: 28O "North Garden, Virginia September 13, 1972 Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County County Office ~.ilding Charlottesville, Virginia Gent 1 emen: The committee on property tax ~elief for the aged had their final meeting on September 7, !972, and unanimously passed the following resolution: "That no action be taken on property tax relief for the aged in Albemarle County until after the meeting of the General Assembly in 1974 at which time it is hopeful that assistance will be provided at the State Level." The 1971 Session of the General Assembly Created a commission to study the exemption of certain real estate of persons not less than sixty-five years of age. This Commission was composed of seven members of the House of Delegates and four from the Senate. This Commission has completed their report and I quote from their findings: "Recognizing the need to alleviate undue tax burdens for our senior citizens while limiting the negative effects on local governments and our elderly citizens, in the body of this report the Commission recommends the enactment of legislation which will correct these present inequities. We know that several local governments are attempting, with their limited financial resources~ to provide tax relief for the elderly as authorized by the General Assembly. Many others are considering doing so. This Commission has concluded that prOperty tax relief for the elderly should be a State program, offering uniform relief for all eligible senior citizens. We urge prompt enactment of legislation as contained in this report, with immediate appropriations to fund a State program of property tax relief~ before localities implement their programs. We still have time to provide a uniform Statewide plan. If we wait, Iocalities will be further impaired in performing vital Iocal services for their citizens and many of our elderly will be again burdened with excessive taxes in proportion to their incomes." Your committee also desired that all material gathered ~by them be turned over to your office for possible use if a local study became necessary in the future. Sincerely yours, (Signed) M. Y. Sutherland, Jr., Chairman Tax Relief Committee" There being no member of the ~ommittee present for this meeting, the Chairman requested the Clerk to arrange a meeting of the full committee for October 11, at 4:30 P.M. in the Board Room. The Chairman stated that Mr. John Smart, Chairman of the Land Use Committee had called to say that he was leaving town for six months and asked if the Supervisors would like to have his resignation. It was the concensus of the Board that Mr. Smart's work for the committee was valuable and since this committee would be working for ~everal months~ that the Vice-Chairman be asked to take over in Mr. Smart's absence and that a letter be sent to Mr. Smart to this effect. The County Attorney presented a decree~handed down by the Judge of Albemarle County Circuit Court ordering that a refund be paid to John T. Camblos, Attorney for Daniel E. & Frances B. Taylor~ that portion of their 1971 real estate taxes paid on an erroneous over-assessment. The decree also Sated that appraised value for tax purposes should be reduced until the next reappraisal, but that appraised value of imprevements shall remain as taxed. Motion was offered, by 28i Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Carwile authorizing payment of the above decree. Motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. Claim against the Dog Tax Fund was received from Virgil M. Grinstead for one (1) lamb kill.ed by dogs. On motion by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr~~ CarWitgy Mr. Grinstead was allowed $20.00 for thi~ claim. Motion~carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwiley Fisher~ Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. Claim against the Dog Tax Fund was received from Virgil M. Grinstead for one (1) ewe killed by dogs. Dn motion by Mr. Henleyy seconded by Mr. Fisher, Er. Grinstead was allowed $10.'00 for this clan. Motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwiley Fishery Henley, Thacker~ Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. At this time, the Chairman asked for names to pla'ced for' nomination for appointment of a member to the Planning Commission to fill the unexpired term of James S. Parks. This term expires on December 31, 1973. Mr. Carwile placed for nomination the name of M. Jack L~inehart. Mr. Wood placed for nomination the name of Harold Umstetter. There being no further nominations the Chairman called for a vote on the above names. Voting form Mr. L~inehart: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley and ~ae~ler. Voting for Mr. Umstetter: Messrs. Thacker and Wood. The Chairman declared Mr. Rinehart the winner. Motion was offered by Mr. Carwile, to appoint Mr. James Jessup as a member of the Bi-Centennial Commission. ~e~e~beingL-Roc~2drther ~ominationsy the Chairman declared the nominations c~sed and Mr. Carwile's motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYRES: Messrs. Carwile~ Fishery Henley, Thacker~ Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. The Chairman stated that the Mayor had asked that two members of this Board be appointed ~o work with the City on a request by Madison Hall volunteers for an appropriation. He so desiEnated Mr. Carwile and Mr. Fisher. Mr. Wheeler stated that Mr. Batchelor, the Mayory Cole Hend~ix, Mr. Shannon Mr. Shea and himself had met and he felt that the type of mix-up that occurred in A~gust would not happen again. He requested that all correspondence to Mr. Shanhon should come from the Board of Supervisors and be signed by the Chairman. The Board received a request from W. J.Copeland, Executive Secre~ry, Criminal Justice Planning Unit in June, 1972, stating that Downing L. Smith wished to be relieved of his responsibilities as a member. Motion was offered by Mr. Carwile to 282 ~ustice appoint Stephen H. Helvin as a member of the Criminal/Planning Unit. Motion was seconded by Mr. Fisher and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. The Clerk was instructed to send a letter of appreciation to Mr. Smith. Mr. Henley reported that the Dog Committee had not finalized any suggestions at this point. HoweVer, it is their concensus that there needs to be adopted some type of legislation in other than A-1 zones. The Board needs enabling legislation that would let the Board draw lines were necessary and this might not be tied to zoning. Mr. Wood stated that at the Board meeting of September ~, he was absent when vote was taken on SP-189 for Billy. L. Clemmer. He stated that he had received calls from Mr. Clemmers' neighbors about this and asked for a reconsideration of the vote. He stated that Mr. Clemmer wants to buy this land and is confused about the Boards' decision since he had contacted every neighbor in the community and found only one opposing, that having been resolved. The land he proposes to buy is three acres and he feels that he has complied with all requirements. Motion was offered by Mr. Wood to reconsider the action taken on September ~. Motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Henley, Thacker and Wood. NAYS: Messrs. Fisher and Wheeler. Mr. Clemmer was called to the Board meeting. Mr. Humphrey then restated that the Planning Commission had deferred action until after a site review and then approved the p~titions with l~O ft. set back and Health Department approval of a septic tank system. Mr. Fisher stated that he felt the Board needed to establish a policy on mobile homes. Mr. Thacker felt that the correction should or be in the new zoning ordinance stating that if the trailer were 800sq. ft./larger he could obtain a building permit and not have to apply for a ~ecial permit and would not have to come before this Board. Mr. CarWile stated that he was concerned that a trailer could stay indefinitely and would prefer to approve the petition on a ~-year basis instead of a permanent basis. Mr. Wood then offered motion to approve the petition with conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission. This motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker. Mr. Carwile then asSed Mr. Wood if he would amend his motion to make this a ~-year (maximum) permit, administratively renewable at the end of the second year and each year thereafter, up to ~ years. Mr. Wood stated no. Mr. Carwile then offered motion to approve this amendment. Motion was seconded by Mr. Fisher and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, He~ley, Thacker and Wood. NAYS: Mr. Wheeler. 9-21-72 283 Vote was then taken on the original motion and it carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood. NAYS: Mr. Wheeler. Mr. Wheeler asked Mr. Batchelor to have a proposal for the use of the L~y OperatHouse ready for the agenda ~ Getober 19. Mr. Wheeler asked about a letter from the Virginia Association of Counties asking for a list of highway priorities. Mr. Batchelor stated that he felt this could be detrimental to this county and suggested that this be debated at the annual meeting of Virginia Association of Counties. Mr. ~gheeler asked the Clerk to put on the agenda of September 27~ the appointment of a street naming committee. He asked the Board members to have names ready for recommendation. At 3:05 P.M., the Chairman entertained a motion to adjourn into executive session to discuss legal matters. Motion was offered by Mr. Carwile, seconded by Mr. Thacker and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile~ Fisher~ Henley~ Thacker~ Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. The Board reconvened. Upon motion, the meeting was adjourned. Chairman